A former co-worker from New Mexico asked me to fill-in for him for a couple days at WarisBusiness.com, the non-profit news site he set up to cover the defense industry, while he’s on vacation in North Africa, far, far away from the internet.

As CityBeat readers are no doubt aware, I love making crosswords and so, I thought, why not throw together a military-industrial-complex puzzle that covers defense in pop culture, the arms trade, military procurement and Congressional hawks? The great thing is, as the guest contributor, I can license this thing under Creative Commons and share it here in San Diego, where defense contracting is everyday stuff. You’ll notice a few locals in the clues.

I’ll update with the answers online in a couple of days (it would be a giveaway to link ‘em up front). In the meantime, if you wanted to show me how smart you are, you can email your completed crossword to davemaass [at] gmail [dot] com. I’ll give the first entrant to finish it correctly some kind of official award for excellence in defense-industry intelligence.

On Tuesday, a federal judge signed off on a modification to a settlement that prevents San Diego Police officers from ticketing anyone sleeping on public property between 9 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. Under the modified settlement, a police officer can issue a ticket in Downtown San Diego only if someone refuses an available bed. City Councilmember Kevin Faulconer pushed for the amendment and made his support of a supportive housing / one-stop service center contingent on police being able to issue tickets again.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one.

The gist of the original settlement, in place since 2007 and the result of a lawsuit brought by nine homeless plaintiffs, says that if there are no shelter beds available, it’s unconstitutional to ticket (or jail) someone for sleeping on the street. There are only about half as many shelter beds as homeless people citywide.

The new settlement, it seems, merely articulates the intent the 2007 settlement. At least that’s how it seems to me—and I’ve been covering this thing for more than four years. Not so, said City Attorney Jan Goldsmith. He referred to the new settlement as a “clear strategic plan” for getting people off the street.

Has San Diego suddenly added more emergency shelter beds that folks can now be directed to? No. At a press conference today, Assistant Police Chief Boyd Long mentioned there were a total of five beds set aside each night at three shelters: Rachel’s Women’s Center, The Rescue Mission and City of Refuge. I spoke with Herb Johnson, CEO of the Rescue Mission SEO Company, and Martha Ranson, director of services for Rachel’s, about the beds. Johnson said his organization has long worked with the police department’s Homeless Outreach Team—which includes police officers and mental-health clinicians—to try to get people in. “We’ll push and squeeze,” he said, “but we’re pretty much at capacity every night.” Ranson said Rachel’s has held a bed open for HOT in the past for emergency situations and has agreed to add another bed.

“The caveat is, it’s a one-night deal,” she said. “The HOT team comes back the next day and works with them to get them to move to something else—whether they need treatment… sometimes there’s board-and-care beds. They’re trying to reach these very resistant people.”

It’s true—that’s what HOT does. They build relationships with people who are mentally ill and chronically homeless and who’ve often had bad experiences at shelters and programs. They try to find the right program for that person without bringing punitive measures into the mix. Trying to use a ticket to get someone into a shelter is “ludicrous,” Ranson said. “Why would you give a homeless person a ticket? It’s not going to make them less homeless.”

The third provider, City of Refuge, isn’t mentioned on any shelter lists, their website is down and their phone line goes to an answering machine.

Goldsmith criticized former City Attorney Mike Aguirre for agreeing to the 2007 settlement. He said that Aguirre “gave away the streets” and described San Diego’s streets as “worse than Manhattan.”

(If Manhattan’s got fewer homeless people, it’s not because police can write illegal-lodging tickets; it’s because of ambitious initiatives like Common Ground’s Street to Home program.)

And, I’d argue, the settlement isn’t what’s caused an increase in the Downtown homeless population, which was just over 1,000 people according to a September count. Even under the 2007 settlement, police could write as many tickets as they wanted between 5:31 a.m. and 9:29 p.m. Instead, blame the loss of residential hotels—the housing of last resort. In the last decade some of Downtown’s most affordable residential-hotel units have been torn down or converted to fancy hotels: the Maryland Hotel, Pickwick, Hotel San Diego, Churchill, Capri and State hotels. That’s at least 1,000 units right there. Blame cuts to to rehabilitation programs for people on parole, the increase in homelessness among Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, the economy.

On Tuesday, Congress voted on an emergency bill to reauthorize three provisions of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act that are set to expire on Feb. 28. The bill failed by seven votes to achieve the necessary super-majority vote as Republicans tied to the Tea Party movement joined progressive Democrats in opposing the bill.

San Diego’s three Republicans—Reps. Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray—each voted for the bill. That was about as predictable as proud lefty Rep. Bob Filner’s vote against it. But San Diego’s other Democrat, Rep. Susan Davis, joined the Republican leadership in voting to extend the PATRIOT Act, and, according to a statement provided to CityBeat, she will likely vote for it again on Thursday, when it will again come to the floor. This time it will probably pass, since it will only require a majority vote.

Here’s Davis’ brief statement:

“I have faith that President Obama will responsibly use the tools contained in the legislation needed to help prevent terrorist attacks, and not to spy on average Americans. The law also requires a significant level of court and congressional oversight.”

The bill would extend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act through Dec. 8, 2011. Here’s Wired’s explanation of the three items:

– The “roving wiretap” provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.

– The “lone wolf” measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason — even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.

– The “business records” provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.

We’re waiting on a statement from Filner’s office, but he states his position rather blatantly on his Congressional website (emphasis is his):

Bob believes that the USA PATRIOT Act was an overly hasty response to the events of September 11, 2001 and dangerously infringes on the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution–it does not make us safer. He was one of the few who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act when it was first introduced, and he voted against its reauthorization in 2005. Bob feels that the USA PATRIOT Act should be repealed!

In other interesting campaign-finance news, City Councilmember Lorie Zapf, a Republican, has released the list of donors who helped her retire her campaign debt. Among them—Alfredo and Jose Antonio Hueso, brothers of Democratic Assemblymember (and former Council Prez) Ben Hueso.

Walmart’s political action committee, San Diego Consumers for Choice, donated to charities supported by San Diego City Council members Todd Gloria and Tony Young, who on Tuesday changed their vote and repealed an ordinance opposed by the mega-corporation.

According to campaign-finance statements filed on Jan. 31, the PAC donated $7,500 to the Jackie Robinson YMCA, where Young participated in a Toys for Tots drive and was a special guest at the annual “Christmas with Character” party on Dec. 18. The Alpha Project, an organization for which Gloria regularly fundraises, picked up $10,000 from the PAC. Gloria volunteered at the city’s winter homeless shelter, which is run by the Alpha Project, on Dec. 15.

The PAC also donated $10,000 to San Diego Earthworks, an environmental organization; Gloria will be hosting Earthworks’ annual awards ceremony in May.

Initially Young and Gloria voted to require that any retailer wishing to build a store 90,000 square feet or larger in San Diego first study the potential economic and environmental impact on the surrounding community. After Walmart produced enough signatures to force an election on the ordinance, Young and Gloria voted with five other councilmembers on Tuesday to repeal it, citing the cost—roughly $2.5 million—of holding the election.

Young and Gloria’s offices say neither had knowledge of Walmart’s contribution. Walmart did not disclose on its paperwork when the donations were made, but the reports indicate most were made between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31. The PAC’s treasurer has not yet returned calls.

The PAC also made a $200 civic donation to the Barrio Logan College Institute, where newly elected council member David Alvarez has worked as an after-school teacher and mentor. The lone dissenting vote on the repeal, Marti Emerald, has also been involved in fundraising for the Alpha Project and served as grand marshall of Earthworks’ Earth Day parade in 2007.

To be clear, we are not alleging that Young, Gloria or Alvarez were influenced by these donations—knowing the city council members and their reputations, we doubt they were. However, we cannot help but note that the donations were made with campaign funds, while Walmart has other vehicles for philanthropy. The contributions may have been an attempt by Walmart to improve its public profile in the community or to access or influence the city council members directly or through their supporters and causes. Of course, the PAC could have been giving purely out of the goodness of its heart, but the fact remains the donations went to these groups specifically rather than other worthy non-profit organizations.

All told, the PAC spent $1.2 million in 2010 using contributions exclusively from Walmart Stores, Inc. These expenditures included $25,000 passed to the Republican Party of San Diego County, and civic donations of $22,500 to the San Diego County Taxpayers’ Association, $20,000 to the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and $1,500 to the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce—all of which are pro-business and have historically supported Walmart.

No further civic donations were reported.

UPDATE 4:24 PM:

Young just called and unequivocally denied knowing anything about the donation.

“I didn’t talk to them about any specific person or organization that they would ever give money to–not one time,” Young tells Citybeat. “I would never do that. I didn’t want to get caught up in that kind of shit. I definitely did not go there and I have no idea who they gave money to.”

Young was surprised to learn from CityBeat that Walmart’s PAC—as opposed to its foundation—donated the money, but says he wouldn’t put it past Walmart’s lobbyists.

“You saw that they are pretty aggressive when it comes to stuff like that,” he said.

Young says that the YMCA never mentioned the donation to him, but he does feel the organization is worthy of financial support. However, if Walmart really wanted to get his attention, he’s told them all along how.

“They said they want to build in a neighborhood like mine,” Young says. “I’m still waiting for the phone call.”

How does the bill create jobs in the private sector? By saying the Legislature really wants to create jobs. Here’s the full text of the legislation:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to promote private sector job creation in the state.

Yeah, that’s it. We’ve left his office a message to call us back and when they do, we’ll ask whether he intends to add anything to it (See: “Spot Bill“). In the meantime, here are a few other pieces of obvious and unnecessary legislation we’d like to propose:

The Legislature Legislates Act of 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to legislate legislatively through legislation voted upon by legislators.

a. For the purposes of this act, “legislatively” is defined as any text beginning with the phrase “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS” and is followed by legal-sounding language broken up with numbered and lettered points.

The Adorable Animal Acknowledgment Act of 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Is it the intent of the Legislature to acknowledge that the following baby animals are adorable, including, but not limited to:

Assembly Member Diane Harkey, a Republican whose district covers the coast from Carlsbad to Dana Point, has filed a bill that she says will protect public firework shows from regulation by the California Coastal Commision.

The bill, AB 206, would exempt fireworks from the Coastal Act by declaring that the displays are not “developments” under the definition of the law.

“I think this bill has about as much appeal as America and apple pie,” Harkey tells CityBeat in a phone interview. “Fireworks at the beach for the general public have been a draw for years and right now, when people are trying to find activities that are inexpensive and family oriented, where they can have a great day, why would any government agency want to take that way? I don’t understand it. It befuddles the mind.”

The bill is a direct reaction to a state appellate court decision (pdf) last year over a fireworks display in Gualala. The court determined the fireworks display was, indeed, a “development” and could be controlled by the California Coastal Commission. Critics described the decision as the “death knell for small town fireworks in America.”

Harkey was especially harsh on the Coastal Commission for even arguing that they should regulate fireworks to begin with.

“The agency just needs a job to do,” she said. “To kill people’s fun is not what the state of California should be about.”

CERF is often in the spotlight regarding fireworks; its threat of litigation reportedly stopped San Diego’s New Year’s Eve fireworks over the San Diego Bay in 2009. The group is currently suing the city of San Diego over the 2010 Fourth of July fireworks display in La Jolla and to halt the upcoming Fourth of July fireworks. Harkey’s legislation would not have an impact on the La Jolla case, Borak says, but the firm nonetheless opposes the bill.

“It is an insult to anyone who enjoys coastal resources,” Borak writes, via email. “Last year, a First District appellate court upheld the Coastal Commission’s finding that a fireworks show was a development for purposes of the Coastal Act. This does not mean fireworks are prohibited in the coastal zone. It simply means they are subject to regulation under the Coastal Act. It’s troubling that fireworks display proponents consistently try to evade regulation by the state and federal government. These laws don’t ban fireworks, they simply regulate them.”

Perhaps more importantly, Borak says the bill sets a negative precedent by creating a specific exemption for an activity.

“Whenever something new gets defined as development under the Coastal Act, someone will propose legislation to exempt it from the Coastal Act,” Borak says.

***

For the sake of transparency, I have to disclosure that last Fourth of July I wrote a short piece about fireworks displays in science fiction and fantasy films. That piece was then cited by David Porter (head of performing arts at Kirkley High School in Lowestoft, England and an arts writer for the East Anglian Times) in an essay titled, “Fireworks: Cultural, Civic, National Celebrations and Politics.” In fact, my stuff took up the entire conclusion:

National and local pride, history, tradition and culture are things that politicians plug into instinctively. The arguments about cost, pollution and the mess afterwards, usually follow. While it’s hard to predict the future, if the movies are any guide, fireworks are here to stay.

According to Dave Maass on the TV channel Syfy web: ‘If there’s one thing we’ve learned about sci-fi, it’s that no futurist or fantasist can imagine a world where humans don’t blow stuff up for fun. Fireworks are the original eye candy, the special effects that existed before filmmakers knew they even needed regular effects.’

He cited Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix, V for Vendetta, Coneheads, The Boy Who Could Fly, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Galaxy Quest, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor; The Fellowship of the Ring and Flight of The Navigator among others to illustrate the point about the longevity of fireworks.

So, I guess that makes me a bit biased, right? I do love fireworks.

Writer’s note: I added that Harkey is a Republican in the first line of this post.